Introduction to Quantum Thermo-Epistemology

This manuscript describes some of our recent findings in the exciting
new field of quantum thermo-epistemology, a branch of implausibility
theory dealing with fundamental questions such as:

Why does toast always land butter-side down?

Why do cars break down only when you need to go somewhere in an emergency?

Why do banks only lend money to people who don't need it?

We have found, surprisingly enough, that these vexing questions do in fact
have a scientific answer, and have developed the beginnings of a theory,
which is briefly described here.

Theorem (1).

Believing something to be true, or discovering a scientific fact,
causes the universe to shift in such a way that the probability
of this fact actually being true decreases. The amount of decrease
is equal to the degree of certainty and incontrovertibility of
the evidence for its truth.

Theorem (2).

The above assertion is unprovable, since proving it
would render it entirely false.

Theorem (3).

Based on the principles of information theory
(Shannon, 1948), in which information is analyzed as a form of entropy,
it can be postulated that discovering a scientific fact, because of the
large decrease in entropy this produces, would cause the discoverer to
become cool to the touch. The degree of truth can then be simply and
accurately measured with an appropriately calibrated thermometer.

From Theorem (1), it is easy to prove that:
The probability that something will happen is inversely proportional to
one's desire for it to happen.
The other laws of implausibility theory can be readily derived from these
three theorems (e.g., ``If something can go wrong, it will'' (Murphy, 1868)).
A further proof of the correctness of these theorems lies in the fact that,
since they are unprovable, it is impossible to be certain of their correctness;
therefore, the universe cannot shift in such a way to render them false.

(Another, even better, proof of this theorem used to exist; tragically,
however, one of our rabbits ate the only copy of the proof.)

Another correlate of Theorem (1) is that the only way to prove something
true is to wish for it to be false. It also explains why, the more one
needs something, the harder it is to get.

One possible explanation for this is that the representation of an external fact
in one's mind is in reality the creation of a small anti-universe, and thus by
the law of conservation of truth, the external universe must change to
make the sum total of truths equal to zero.

Here are some concrete examples of this phenomenon, which have
been well documented elsewhere:

If you are in a car accident, the law changes in such a way
to make it your fault. Similar phenomena have been observed with
tax laws and campaign finance regulations
(Gingrich, 1997).

In conducting a scientific experiment, it is frequently observed that
the closer one gets to the final result, the more difficult it becomes to
reproduce the original observation. (This is also due in part to the
well-documented Experimenter Entropy Effect).

The more potentially embarrassing your e-mail message, the greater the
likelihood that it will be delivered to the wrong recipient
( Allman, 1983).

Failure to perform backups of one's computer data produces a
statistically-significant increase in the likelihood of a hard disk crash
(The reference for this was accidentally erased).

Stepping out of the office causes the telephone to ring, as soon as the
distance to the telephone becomes far enough to make it impossible to
reach the phone before the caller hangs up. Only if you are working on
something that requires sufficiently intense concentration that you
can't answer the phone, will it ring while you are close enough to
answer it. The quantum nature of this phenomenon becomes evident if
one decides to never answer the telephone. In this case, the telephone
will ring only when you are walking past it with nothing to do.

As one walks down the street, no matter which direction one walks
in, the vast majority of people one meets are travelling in the opposite
direction to oneself. This observation has been frequently attributed to
quantum phenomena; however, it has recently been demonstrated (Walker et al.,
1997), that this effect is largely due to a subtle sampling bias.

As an aside, it should be noted that several other phenomena once attributed
to quantum effects have also been found to have other explanations.
For example, the well-known observation that washing one's car can induce
rain was actually found to be the result of tiny soap bubbles drifting into
the upper atmosphere and acting as nuclei of condensation. Similarly,
the observation by British researchers that carrying an umbrella usually
prevents rain was found to actually be the result of trace chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) emanating from the plastic elements of the umbrella, drifting into the
stratosphere, and not due to quantum effects as originally believed.
In a classic experiment, it was shown that
in the stratosphere, the intense local heating caused by the the
CFCs accumulated from thousands of opened umbrellas (mediated by CFC-catalyzed
disruption of the ozone layer) not only prevented atmospheric
precipitation, but actually promoted nearly instantaneous reabsorption
of clouds into the atmosphere, creating a sunny day.

The quantum epistemological effect of Theorem (1) has also been used by
tornado researchers, who set up small trailers as "bait" in order to
attract tornadoes for study, on the theory that the Universe would think
the researchers did not want the trailers to be destroyed, and thus create
a tornado (e.g., J. Swisher and B. Dervisham, J. Torn. Res. 7, 14332 (1999)).
The ethics of this practice have been questioned
by some researchers, while others have suggested that the fact that the
researchers wish to observe a tornado actually serves to diminish the
probability of their occurrence, even to the extent of counteracting the
attractive effect of trailer parks (which are known to be a powerful
tornado pheromone). In any event, although the affinity of tornadoes for
trailer parks is readily demonstrated in the lab, the cycloattractant
properties of trailers confounds any simple interpretation of whether
quantum effects truly plays any significant role.

It also underlines the difficulties of demonstrating these quantum
effects in the laboratory, since any attempt to accumulate data on this
effect will cause it to disappear, only to reappear again when the researcher
concludes that the effect does not exist. Thus, these phenomena can only
be studied by indirect or in cogito experiments.

Interestingly, the deconstructionists seem at some level to
have grasped this concept, but as usual they have completely
misunderstood its profoundly Heisenbergian epistemological
implications.

(Note: We have recently shown that Theorem 1 is in fact a special
case of general thermoepistemological theory, and is in fact a result
of a generalized curvature of science. Quantum experimenter entropy
effects may also play a role here as well.)

The theory developed thus far still needs more work to make it
fit into the overall formal architecture of quantum mechanics. This is
left as an exercise for the reader.